Geithner’s Fed Told AIG to Limit Swaps Disclosure (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
Backroom deals for friends... I don't see how this guy will survive 2010, and he probably shouldn't.
Last edited:
Geithner's head about to roll?
- Thread starter 30ashopper
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Geithner’s Fed Told AIG to Limit Swaps Disclosure (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
Backroom deals for friends... I don't see how this guy will survive 2010, and he probably shouldn't.
It should roll.:angry:
First he doesn't pay his taxes, and now he gets caught laundering tax payer money through AIG to Goldman Sachs and tells them not to disclose it.
If that doesn't qualify him for Treasury Secretary, I don't know what would.
If that doesn't qualify him for Treasury Secretary, I don't know what would.
Interesting perspective RayStar. I understand what you are saying, but 100% profit on tax payer money? Goldman Sachs might have underwritten a near demise of themselves as well.
I think Geithner should go.
And, I am about to take a new position, which I have never done before; and, that is to vote against every incumbent for the next six years.
There are people who can't pay their heating bills this month and that is much more important to me than dirty politics, increased spending and a shady cabinet with czars that are appointed by the President and no one has a say.
I'm kinda' done.
I think Geithner should go.
And, I am about to take a new position, which I have never done before; and, that is to vote against every incumbent for the next six years.
There are people who can't pay their heating bills this month and that is much more important to me than dirty politics, increased spending and a shady cabinet with czars that are appointed by the President and no one has a say.
I'm kinda' done.
Me too, Lynnie. Me too.
Count me in and welcome to the "throw the bums out" club. And I am referring to incumbents, not Republicans and Democrats.
Henry Paulson's Goldman Sachs Stock and Conflict of Interest May 2, 2009|Posted By Adam Sharp
A look back at Paulson?s conflicted interests
Hank Paulson When Hank Paulson agreed to become Treasury Secretary in May of 2006, he found himself in a bit of a pickle. You see, he owned about $500 million in Goldman Sachs stock, from his days as CEO of the firm. So, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, government rules forced Mr. Paulson to sell all that stock. Phew! Looks like we dodged a bullet there?
Mr. Paulson?s conflict of interest also brought a very unique benefit: He didn?t have to pay any capital gains taxes on the sale of that stock, at all. The Economist estimated his tax savings to be $200m. That?s not bad compensation for less than 3 years of work at a ?public service? gig. He also got a nice salary and generous benefits. For more on the intimate relationship between Goldman and Government, see this post.
The ethics rules that forced Paulson to sell his GS shares were designed so that rich executives aren?t dissuaded from entering public service due to tax issues. But they seem to have the opposite effect. It encourages these guys to move to Washington after they?ve made their fortunes. Getting a government job with conflicted interest turns out to be a fantastic tax dodge. Not to mention all the good you can do while in office (for your buddies, high-five!). Sorry, I?ve been watching too much Borat/Ali-G lately.
As most people know, Paulson went on to orchestrate the largest corporate bailout in history. Some banks failed, some will prosper in a thinned field of competitors. One of the major beneficiaries was the firm he formerly headed, Goldman Sachs. They received $10b in direct aid, plus another $12b indirectly, via the AIG bailout. Goldman argues that even if AIG wasn?t bailed out, they would have collected most of their $12b. They may be correct, but I am skeptical. To be clear, I am not accusing Goldman or anyone else of illegal activity or fraud. But things seem very fishy.
A look back at Paulson?s conflicted interests
Hank Paulson When Hank Paulson agreed to become Treasury Secretary in May of 2006, he found himself in a bit of a pickle. You see, he owned about $500 million in Goldman Sachs stock, from his days as CEO of the firm. So, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, government rules forced Mr. Paulson to sell all that stock. Phew! Looks like we dodged a bullet there?
Mr. Paulson?s conflict of interest also brought a very unique benefit: He didn?t have to pay any capital gains taxes on the sale of that stock, at all. The Economist estimated his tax savings to be $200m. That?s not bad compensation for less than 3 years of work at a ?public service? gig. He also got a nice salary and generous benefits. For more on the intimate relationship between Goldman and Government, see this post.
The ethics rules that forced Paulson to sell his GS shares were designed so that rich executives aren?t dissuaded from entering public service due to tax issues. But they seem to have the opposite effect. It encourages these guys to move to Washington after they?ve made their fortunes. Getting a government job with conflicted interest turns out to be a fantastic tax dodge. Not to mention all the good you can do while in office (for your buddies, high-five!). Sorry, I?ve been watching too much Borat/Ali-G lately.
As most people know, Paulson went on to orchestrate the largest corporate bailout in history. Some banks failed, some will prosper in a thinned field of competitors. One of the major beneficiaries was the firm he formerly headed, Goldman Sachs. They received $10b in direct aid, plus another $12b indirectly, via the AIG bailout. Goldman argues that even if AIG wasn?t bailed out, they would have collected most of their $12b. They may be correct, but I am skeptical. To be clear, I am not accusing Goldman or anyone else of illegal activity or fraud. But things seem very fishy.
